Next week the United Nations’ (UN) Human Rights Council (HRC) is holding a high level dialogue to assess the situation in the Central African Republic (CAR). The last time the HRC considered the situation of CAR was in September 2017, when President Faustin-Archange Touadéra made an unexpected appearance, and addressed member states, nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and human rights mandate holders.

Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW) was present during this address and noted the positive engagement CAR maintains with the UN’s human rights mechanisms, including by granting access to the Independent Expert on CAR, Ms. Marie-Therese Keita Bocoum.

End of transition was not the end of the security crisis

During his speech, President Touadéra noted that the end of the transitional government and the return to democracy did not bring an end to the security crisis in CAR. Since November 2016, armed groups that were once part of the Seleka Alliance have clashed in the north and eastern regions. This violence has been characterised by the targeting of civilians and destruction of civilian infrastructure leading to mass displacement.

Editor’s Note: CAR’s recent conflict assumed a religious dimension in March 2013 when Seleka, a predominantly Muslim rebel coalition, took power in a coup, suspending the constitution, dissolving the government and National Assembly and installing one of its leaders, Michael Djotodia, as president. In September 2013, Djotodia officially disbanded Seleka; however, many rebels refused to disarm and sectarian violence increased. Sustained and severe human rights violations eventually resulted in equally severe retributive violence following the emergence of anti-Seleka groups commonly referred to as ‘anti–Balaka’. The emergence of the anti – Balaka in December 2013 led to violence targeting CAR’s minority Muslim population, which a UN Commission of Inquiry described as ethnic cleansing. Although the anti-Balaka groups have been widely described as ‘Christian militia’, they are in reality composed of pre-existing village defence groups bolstered by former soldiers loyal to deposed President Bozize, former Seleka fighters, angry youths seeking revenge for Seleka violations and common criminals.

Other parts of the country have experienced similar violence. On 7 February 2017, a church leader was killed and three churches in the KM5 district of Bangui were razed to the ground. The attack occurred after a former Seleka leader was killed in a clash with MINUSCA, the UN peacekeeping mission in CAR. The former Seleka leader had seized a vehicle belonging to an Imam and opposed plans to rebuild Saint Matthias Church.

In the south east of the country, anti-Balaka fighters targeted the Muslim community living near Bangassou. Since May 2017 the Catholic Church has provided shelter for fleeing Muslims and almost 2,000 are currently living in the church’s compound.

In an attempt to bring about peace, in June 2017 the CAR government signed a peace agreement with the majority of armed groups. But within days of signing it, hundreds of civilians were displaced as fighting broke out between armed groups. Over 40,000 civilians were displaced in CAR’s eastern region in the months that followed. In the north west, close to the border with Chad, 65,000 people have been displaced since 27 December 2017 as former Seleka National Movement for the Liberation of the Central African Republic (MNCL) attacked civilians. The majority of the internally displaced persons (IDP) have sought refuge in the town of Paoua, which has a population of and resources for 40,000 people. The arrival of an extra 65,000 people will put a strain on resources and may ultimately cause a rise in tensions between the host community and IDPs.

Justice and peace are complimentary principles

President Touadéra noted that peace and justice are complementary principles.

At times in CAR’s recent crisis there has been a desire to silence the guns and bring an end to the violence. However, while efforts to engage with armed groups in order to bring about peace for the sake of civilians are important, the issue of impunity must not be neglected.

In 2016, CSW met with Jean Paul* an Evangelical church leader involved in the national peace platform. Together with Muslim and animist community leaders, he has been travelling to the country’s interior since December 2012, speaking to communities who had been attacked by the Seleka and other armed groups.

“Every time there were atrocities, acts of violence in a town I went to see for myself…I had to speak to the communities affected to get Muslims and Christians together, to speak to them that they shouldn’t be fighting; that they don’t need to take up arms against each other; that they need to be patient; that there will be justice,” he said.

“That was what I promised them, that there will be justice, but it was difficult for them to accept what I was saying, because there were dead bodies lying around. But I had to say to them, ‘Don’t take revenge, there will be justice’”.

However, Pastor Jean Paul told CSW that as the country has transitioned into democratic rule, commitments to justice have yet to be fully realised.

Notably, the Special Criminal Court, which was created by the Transitional Government in June 2015 to try those accused of having committed serious crimes since January 2003, has not held a single hearing. Steps were taken during 2017 to move things forward, with international judges and support staff taking up positions. In February, the court’s prosecutor, Toussaint Muntazini Mukimapa, announced that investigations would begin in April.

However, the country’s judicial system has limited financial and human capacity to effectively execute its duties. As the country rebuilds, the government desperately needs to restore courts, prisons and a full criminal system to try those responsible for human rights violations during the crisis period. The international community must support President Touadéra’s government as it respond to these challenges.

A delay in justice threatens peace

Delaying the establishment of justice mechanisms threatens the work of peacebuilding and reconciliation.

Pastor Jean Paul told CSW of an incident that took place in Bangui as religious leaders met for a planning meeting. The story illustrates that failure to prosecute those who perpetrated human rights violations during the crisis risks destabilising the fragile peace that community and religious leaders have worked so hard to protect:

“I remember one particular meeting – I arranged to get together some pastors, Catholic priests and Muslim imams. Unfortunately, there was a Catholic priest and a Muslim imam who were coming from another part of town and their driver was actually a Séléka colonel. As we were starting the meeting there was a woman who saw this Séléka driver, the colonel, and she recognised him as the man who had killed her husband. And there was a young man who recognised the same man as the one who had killed his older brother.

“And that caused an uproar and a crowd descended and attacked the vehicle and were about to kill this Séléka driver. They wanted to carry out justice themselves. Why? Because people like this man were not being punished, they were not being prosecuted and they had to take vengeance themselves, as they saw it.

“But we as Christian pastors could not allow, could not accept that this should happen. So we rushed to this man’s protection, we took blows in his place and we managed to get him into the church building. There were people trying to break down the doors of the church. They had respect for nobody, all they wanted was to kill this man. They set fire to the vehicle.

“People were just expressing what was in their hearts.

“If there is no justice that is what is going to happen. People will feel obliged to carry out justice themselves. And since a lot of the main killers are known to everybody, it will just lead to a never ending cycle of violence in the country. It is essential that justice is done.”

It is important for the international community to support the government of CAR to restore peace and security across the country, but justice must be an essential element of the peace process. Leaders of armed groups who are suspected of violating international human rights and humanitarian law must be held to account, as there can be no lasting peace where impunity is allowed to reign.

A child’s right to freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) is guaranteed under international law. Yet children and young people in several countries across the world experience discrimination because of their religion or belief, including in educational settings.

For example, Christian children in northern Nigeria are often obliged to adopt Muslim names in order to access education. Hindu children in Pakistan face psychological and physical abuse from classmates and teachers. Rohingya Muslim children in Burma witness their schools being knocked down. Baha’i children in Iran are regularly abused physically and verbally by teachers.

“I was beaten with sticks approximately twice a week throughout nursery and prep. After that the manner of the abuse changed. As well as physical punishment, I was mentally abused and tortured by consistently being told to convert.”

Gurinder Singh, Sikh, Pakistan, 17 years old

The right to education, like the right to FoRB, ‘is crucial to the realization of a wide array of other human rights.’[1] Education can facilitate social mobility, or entrench disadvantage. It can assist in creating a culture of tolerance, or contribute towards fuelling stereotyping, intolerance and extremism.

With this in mind, Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW) has produced a new report entitled Faith and a Future: Discrimination on the Basis of Religion or Belief in Education. Through verified case studies and in depth research in five countries spanning five geographical regions, this report seeks to stimulate vital conversations, encouraging further research and necessary action to address religious discrimination in educational settings.

An underreported issue

While the right to education has generated significant interest in the international arena, the impact on children of FoRB violations in educational settings has received insufficient attention.

For example, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) include a commitment to ‘leave no one behind’; however, the lack of focus on the experiences of religious and ethnic minorities means that these goals fail to address discrimination on the basis of religion or belief in the area of educational rights.

Similarly, during the first two cycles of the UN Human Rights Council’s (HRC’s) Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process only 31 out of more than 55,000 recommendations referred jointly to the right to education and the right to FoRB. Moreover, while FoRB special rapporteurs have sought to draw attention to religion-related violations in educational settings, non-FoRB experts are yet to examine this intersection, despite the interelated nature of human rights.

Violations take several forms

FoRB violations in the educational setting can take a number of forms:

Biased education, including intolerance from teachers and discrimination in textbooks, creates a toxic mix, leaving students from minority religious communities isolated and reviled. Curriculum reform should be an urgent priority in countries where religious bigotry is fostered by textbooks that encourage religious stereotyping and even hatred. Teachers should also receive training to enable them to understand and promote respect for different religious traditions.

“Education can be the bulwark against extremist ideologies, sectarianism, discrimination and stereotypes.”

USCIRF, 2015

Discrimination and intolerance on the basis of religion or belief significantly undermine enjoyment of the right to education, including in Rakhine State, Burma, where Rohingya children are unable to access education on account of their religion and ethnicity. Effective action must be taken to protect the rights of children in countries or communities where they are barred from attending school because of their religious beliefs or those of their parents.

The psychological impact of the abuse received by children on account of their religion or belief cannot be overstated. Many interviewees informed CSW of the ‘mental torture’ they have suffered as a result of religious discrimination and intolerance in educational settings. Rejected by their peers and teachers, this suffering can have lasting consequences.

It is vital that governments address and end any violations that may be occurring in their respective countries, ensuring perpetrators are held to account. For the sake of the children who suffer the consequences of religious discrimination in educational settings, the international community must also act swiftly to address violations, and invest resources into further research on the interaction between FoRB and the right to education.

CSW hopes its new report, along with the Faith and a Future campaign, will encourage governments, civil society actors and key international bodies and officials to work towards ensuring that every child has the right to both faith and a future.

By Mervyn Thomas, CSW’s Chief Executive

[1] Report of the Independent Expert on Minority Issues, Gay McDougall, ‘Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including the Right to Development’, 2009, UNGA/A/HRC/10/11/Add/ 5/3/2009

Advertisements

]]>cswpressGirl LearningCSW_F&amp;F_Campaign_Report_p6-7Shared experiences in the context of extreme violence: what is the Church’s role?https://forbinfull.org/2018/02/20/shared-experiences-in-the-context-of-extreme-violence-what-is-the-churchs-role/
Tue, 20 Feb 2018 12:35:53 +0000http://forbinfull.org/?p=1863Over the past decades, both Peru and Colombia have experienced internal conflicts which involved extreme levels of violence in many regions and high loss of life. While the conflicts were political (pitting far left groups against the government and/or far right paramilitary groups) they directly impacted ordinary civilians and civil society, including churches.

In many cases, Christians, especially church leaders, were targeted for different reasons by the various armed actors. This directly affected freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) in those areas.

In both countries, the larger Church (composed of many different denominations) found itself looking for ways to respond to the conflict and especially how to support the churches, Christians and others living in conflict zones.

Peace and Hope, a Protestant Christian non-governmental organisation in Peru, was created specifically for this reason following the massacre, by the Peruvian military, of six young men attending an evening prayer service in a Presbyterian church in 1984. In Colombia, the Mennonite non-governmental organization, Justapaz, works closely with partners in the Colombian Council of Churches Peace Commission on these issues, including the documentation of the experiences of churches in conflict zones and support for victims and those under threat.

When I began leading Christian Solidarity Worldwide’s (CSW) work on Latin America 17 years ago I knew very little about the armed conflicts in Peru and Colombia, and even less about their impact on churches and Christians. Unfortunately my ignorance was not uncommon – even today I am frequently asked why CSW, which is an NGO dedicated to the defense of freedom of religion or belief, works on these countries, known as ‘Christian countries.’

As I visited both countries, working with Peace and Hope in Peru and with the Council of Evangelical Churches in Colombia, I had many opportunities to personally meet and hear the testimonies of church leaders living in conflict zones. I began to understand that living in this context was not easy, and to live as a Christian was a serious challenge with grave consequences – including persecution.

What is the right response when an armed group comes to a pastor to demand that he hand over a portion of the offering, dedicated to Christ? What does a pastor do when an armed group comes to tell her that she should not preach on certain Christian themes that they do not like? What does a missionary do when an armed group comes to inform him that he’s no longer allowed to visit the isolated communities in the countryside and that the Christians who live there are no longer allowed to meet? What does a young Christian, in love with Christ’s words about peacemakers, do when an armed group comes to recruit him (by force if he won’t join voluntarily)?

I understood that there are no easy answers to these questions. I learned that in many of these cases, Christians who disobeyed the orders of the armed groups to follow the orders of the Lord paid with their lives.

This led me to another question.

In a context of extreme violence, what is the role of the Church in the widest sense of the word – the Church at the national level or even the international level?

I saw the answer in the work of Justapaz and Peace and Hope, seeking out the affected people and communities in order to support them socially, practically, legally and spiritually.

The two organisations now have decades of experience and they continue to grow and learn – and their experiences can be very useful for other Christians working as individuals, in churches or formal groups like NGOs, who are also looking for an effective way to respond to the needs of their neighbor in a context of extreme violence.

This kind of extreme violence is now seen in other parts of Latin America including in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and parts of Mexico. Local churches have been forced to confront many of the same core issues as Peru and Colombia.

Available online now, Las Buenas Nuevas en Contextos de Violenciashares the experiences and lessons learned by Peace and Hope and Justapaz as Christian organisations working within a context of violent conflict. It is my hope that this can help other churches and Christian groups which find themselves in similar situations in Latin America – and around the world.

By CSW’s Latin America Advocacy Officer

Advertisements

]]>cswpressNorth Korea A Decade On: The Regime has not changed, but the people have.https://forbinfull.org/2018/02/06/north-korea-a-decade-on-the-regime-has-not-changed-but-the-people-have/
Tue, 06 Feb 2018 09:55:56 +0000http://forbinfull.org/?p=1859

A decade ago, Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW) published one of the first comprehensive reports on North Korea’s human rights disaster, with the conclusion that it amounts to crimes against humanity.

North Korea: A Case to Answer, A Call to Act was also one of the first reports to call on the United Nations to establish a Commission of Inquiry to investigate. Initially, we were almost alone in making this call – a voice crying in the wilderness, dismissed by some for pursuing an action that, it was predicted, would never happen. We were banging our heads against a brick wall, some said. We took the view that if enough of us bang our heads for long enough, we might dislodge some bricks.

Four years ago this month, the Commission of Inquiry published its findings, in the most comprehensive and authoritative assessment of North Korea’s human rights situation so far. Chaired by Australian judge Michael Kirby, the inquiry found that the ‘gravity, scale and nature’ of the human rights violations in North Korea ‘reveal a State that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world’.

Ten years on from CSW’s 2007 report, and things have changed in two ways. Outside North Korea, the human rights situation is much higher up the international agenda. Last week President Trump invited a remarkable North Korean escapee to the United States Congress for his State of the Union address, then met with North Korean survivors privately too. The UN Human Rights Council and General Assembly passed resolutions endorsing the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations, and the Security Council put North Korea’s human rights crisis on its agenda.

Based on research that included a survey of more than 100 respondents, ranging from recent North Korean escapees and UN officials to human rights experts, we have found that in the past decade, although the regime has not changed, the people have.

In particular, there are changes in the economy, human rights and access to information. The changes should not be exaggerated – they amount to nothing more than very tiny flickers of hope. But in a situation of otherwise total darkness, flickers of hope and light matter.

In the economy, there has been a shift from dependence on the state-run public distribution system to widespread reliance on private trading, in what has become a ‘grey’ area of semi-tolerated markets. Illegal market trading, including smuggling across the border with China, has provided North Koreans with a lifeline. A few are benefiting from relative prosperity. The gap between rich and poor has become more visible, bribery and corruption are rampant, and as a result dissent is growing, albeit only inwardly and silently, not publicly. Yet while a few prosper, poverty, malnutrition and related diseases are still widespread. Care International reports that 18 million people – seventy percent of the population – are in urgent need of food.

Radio broadcasts into the country, smuggled USB sticks and DVDs have given North Koreans a new access to knowledge of the outside world. South Korean soap operas and dramas are more available, and so the regime’s propaganda about South Korea is being challenged. People can see for themselves that life in the South is more prosperous and more free. “When we watched dramas [from South Korea], we envied the people … and then we wished we could go outside,” one escapee said. “Then we might complain: why were we born here?”

As a consequence the motivation for defection has changed.

As one escapee told us, “in the beginning, people defected because they were starving. They went to China to find food. But it is different now. For example, I was doing ok in North Korea. I could live. But more and more people want freedom, opportunities and hope.”

In regard to human rights, it is essential that any changes are not over-stated. North Korea remains among the very worst abusers of human rights in the world. It is, as a previous UN special rapporteur described it, “in a category of its own”, a country in which every single article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is violated severely.

However, some anecdotal evidence suggests that international pressure may have made some small difference. In 2009, the term ‘human rights’ was included in North Korea’s constitution for the first time. Some recent escapees claim that when they were in prison they escaped beatings and torture, or endured less severe abuses, because prison guards told them an international inquiry was watching.

“There has been some improvement,” said one escapee. “I heard about the UN noise and fuss. Without this, no one would know about human rights at all.”

For freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, however, there is absolutely no change. Any sign of any belief other than total devotion to the Kim family is severely punished. One interviewee told us that a person found to be a Christian “would be immediately shot”. Another said that when it comes to religion, North Koreans “just shudder because punishment is very severe”.

How do we respond to these findings? We should be encouraged that international advocacy can make a difference. It is slow and pain-staking without doubt; it entails tiny steps forward accompanied by frustrations and tragedy of course – but the regime is not as immune to outside pressure as we may once have feared. Our report therefore concludes that we should go on making “noise and fuss” about North Korea’s crimes against humanity.

We must increase the flow of information into North Korea. And we must increase engagement with North Korean exiles, to empower and equip them to be the change-makers of tomorrow. We must learn from the changes that have occurred over the past decade, and support North Korea’s people – inside and outside the country – to bring more substantial, meaningful and genuine change to the darkest corner of the world. Finally, we must seek bold and creative ways to ensure that human rights violations end, the regime is held accountable for its barbaric crimes, and the tiny flickers of hope are fanned into a bright light that opens this closed country.

Prime Minister Theresa May’s first official visit to China, which begins today, is billed as an opportunity to boost trade with an important ally. But it will also take place against the backdrop of the country’s violations of fundamental human rights, including freedom of religion or belief.

In the last month, Christians have been detained, and unregistered churches shut down or destroyed ahead of the implementation of revised Regulations on Religious Affairs, which strengthen state control over religious activities in China.

Unregistered churches, sometimes called house churches, are independent churches which have not registered with the state-sanctioned Three Self Patriotic Movement. The new regulations are due to come into force tomorrow, giving Mrs May a rare opportunity to speak directly to the Chinese government and publicly to reiterate the UK’s commitment to defending human rights.

A few weeks ago, authorities in Shanxi Province used dynamite to demolish the 50,000-member Golden Lampstand Church. Meanwhile, two pastors of Living Stone Church, an unregistered Protestant church which at one time had over 700 members, have been fined over US$1 million for collecting ‘illegal’ donations from members of the congregation.

Pastor Su Tianfu and Pastor Yang Hua have filed several appeals on the basis that the money was voluntarily donated by church members and was only used to fund church activities. The appeals were rejected.

In Yunnan province, meanwhile, hundreds of Christians have been arrested and accused of being members of an ‘evil cult’. In one such case, six members of an unregistered church group were sentenced on January 18 to up to 13 years in prison for ‘using an evil cult to undermine law enforcement’. They were accused of belonging to a group called the Three Grades of Servants, which the government has labelled an ‘evil cult’ – charges which they deny.

Although the situation for unregistered churches varies considerably from place to place, these are not isolated incidents.

China is a large country, and while different approaches are being taken by various provincial authorities, when taken together, these cases may suggest a long-term plan to target independent religious communities.

This article was originally published on 31 January by Christian Today. Click here to read more.

By Kiri Kankhwende, CSW’s Public Affairs Team Leader

Advertisements

]]>cswpressBulldozed House (church) of Sha Ao-4 with broken crossThe Freedom of Religion Law in Jharkhand, India: A recycled law that’s repressive on all countshttps://forbinfull.org/2018/01/12/the-freedom-of-religion-law-in-jharkhand-india-a-recycled-law-thats-repressive-on-all-counts/
Fri, 12 Jan 2018 15:50:29 +0000http://forbinfull.org/?p=1849

Religious conversion was criminalised in India’s Jharkhand State on 11 September with the introduction of the so-called ‘Freedom of Religion’ law, making Jharkhand the seventh State to introduce such legislations after Odhisa (1967), Madhya Pradesh (1968), Chhattisgarh (1968), Arunachal Pradesh (1978), Gujarat (2003) and Himachal Pradesh (2006).

Section 3 of the Jharkhand Freedom of Religion Act 2017 declares “no person shall convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise, any person from one religion/ religious faith to another by the use of force or by allurement or by any fraudulent means, nor shall any person abet any such conversion.” The punishment includes a prison term of up to three years and/or a fine up to fifty thousand rupees (equivalent to about £580).

If the ‘crime’ involves a minor, woman or Scheduled Caste or Tribe – castes or tribes that have historically been socially and economically disadvantaged, such as Dalits – the penalties include a prison sentence of up to four years and/or a fine up to one hundred thousand rupees (equivalent to about £1,161).

Wide powers are given to the district authorities to investigate allegations and prior permission must be sought before a conversion can take place, ignoring the fundamental rights to free choice.

Like the laws in the other six States, the Jharkhand law is being used to validate the State’s agenda to establish a Hindu rashtra, or kingdom, and to circumvent Article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution, which grants “freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.”

The Jharkhand law also contravenes international legal jurisprudence on freedom of religion or belief and UN experts warn that such laws can have severe practical consequences, fuelling intolerance, hostility and violence against religious minorities.

Contravenes international legal jurisprudence

India has acceded to the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and is therefore bound by Article 18, which states “everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.”

The State cannot force someone to have or adopt a religion or belief by imposing physical force or penal sanctions, making the Jharkhand law contrary to international human rights standards.

A template for intolerance, hostility and violence

In his August 2017 interim report, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of religion or belief, Ahmed Shaheed, warned of a government’s role in nurturing and aggravating conditions where extremism can flourish. He observed that intolerance manifests itself through discrimination, hostility and violence.

The Jharkhand law requires that no person is to be converted by force, allurement or fraud, but these terms are not clearly defined. This leaves the law open to interpretation and abuse and may be used to discriminate against religious minorities.

Case Study One:

On 15 September in Simdega village, a mob of fundamentalists accused the local Christian community of forcing Prakash* and his wife to convert to Christianity. Prakash and his wife have been excommunicated from their village for seeking prayer support. Six Christians have been charged with conversion and are on bail awaiting trial.

Case Study Two:

On 24th September in Gumla District, two lay church leaders Sanjay* and Rajesh* were invited to pray for Nirmala,* a pregnant lady. With no finance to take her to the hospital, Sanjay and Rajesh and a few members of the local Christian community agreed to take her to the hospital. Unfortunately, she died on the way to the hospital and the local Christian community paid the expenses for her burial. On learning about what had happened, members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (a Hundi nationalist group) forced her widowed husband to sign a letter admitting that Sanjay and Rajesh and the local Christian community were the cause of her death.

Although it is early days and the impact of the law on Jharkhand’s religious minorities is yet to be documented, the reality is that such laws will exacerbate intolerance leading to discrimination and violence, in situations where prejudice towards Christians is already rife.

Case Study Three:

On 30 September in Hazaribagh District, Pastor Ramu* and Samir* a professor at a local higher institution were accused of forcibly converting a lady and her son to Christianity. The woman and her son had converted to Christianity with the consent of her husband. However, he was later approached by members of two Hindu nationalist groups (the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Vishnu Hindu Parishad) threatening to take over his home and land unless he made a written complaint to the police that Ramu and Suraj had forcefully converted his family.

* Names have been changed for security reasons

Conclusion

The right to freedom of religion or belief is clearly enshrined in international law and under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. However, the freedom to have and adopt a religion of one’s choosing, and to share one’s religion, are being undermined by these anti- conversion laws, which create a culture of intolerance and embolden those who would stir up violence against religious minorities.

By CSW’s India Advocacy Officer

Advertisements

]]>cswpressKandhamal-Benny ManserWhy Faith Actors are Essential to Promoting Religious Tolerance: a Guest Blog from Lord Ahmad of Wimbledonhttps://forbinfull.org/2017/12/10/why-faith-actors-are-essential-to-promoting-religious-tolerance/
Sun, 10 Dec 2017 22:15:12 +0000http://forbinfull.org/?p=1840The international community marks Human Rights Day on 10 December, the day on which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted in 1948.

I have decided to use this occasion to shine a spotlight on Article 18 of the UDHR, which enshrines the right to Freedom of Religion or Belief. In doing so, I am delighted to join forces with Christian Solidarity Worldwide, which does excellent work to promote Freedom of Religion of Belief around the world.

Some have suggested that Freedom of Religion of Belief is a relatively neglected human right – indeed it has been called “the orphaned right”. Whether or not this has been true in the past, it is certainly not being neglected by the UK Government.

I cherish the right to freedom of religion or belief. I celebrate the fact that people of all faiths and none are free to follow their religion or belief in the UK. But I do not forget for one moment that many millions of others are denied this universal human right. Denial of this freedom does deep and lasting damage to many of our fellow global citizens, striking at the very heart of their way of life and often putting them and their families in danger.

Millions suffer discrimination and unspeakable levels of persecution due to their religious identity. Some members of religious minorities, such as the Baha’i in Iran, Yazidis in Iraq, Christians and Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan are attacked or arrested; others are regarded as second class, and unable to access key services such as education, health or justice. Denial of religious freedom exacerbates the suffering of innocent people in many of today’s crises and conflicts – including the Rohinga in Burma, Nigeria and the Middle East. It also hinders peace and reconciliation.

This government will not remain silent in the face of violations and abuses of human rights, including the right to Freedom of Religion or Belief. We will work through diplomatic channels, bilaterally and in concert with our international partners, to press the case for freedom and tolerance. If we are to make a difference, I believe we must act together: government, civil society and faith leaders.

This brings me to the main message of this blog. Many actors have a role in ensuring that everyone enjoys the human rights set out in the UDHR. First among those are the states whose responsibility it is to defend those rights. Faith leaders too have great influence and it is particularly important that they speak up for tolerance. Religion often reaches parts of societies that government cannot. All the world’s major religions preach peace and tolerance. So on this Human Rights Day I pay tribute to those faith leaders who, true to their chosen faiths, promote the rights of others to practice their chosen faith or belief.

It can be a daunting challenge to defend Freedom of Religion or Belief in today’s increasingly hostile world. At times progress can appear a distant dream. But we must not falter. Too many have been denied this right for too long. Now is the time to stand united and to demand, once and for all, that the freedoms described in the UDHR should be enjoyed by everyone, everywhere.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon is the Prime Minister’s Special Representative on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict and Minister of State for the Commonwealth and the UN at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office.

The recent decision by the United States (US) to lift two decades of sanctions on Sudan has been welcomed by some international actors, but received criticism from human rights organisations, campaigners and Sudanese opposition politicians.

The significance of this achievement for the government of Sudan cannot be understated.

Sudan has invested heavily in efforts towards the lifting of sanctions, including bringing the African Union on board and supporting the appointment of the UN Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of the unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights. The mandate holder is tasked with investigating the human rights impact of economic measures applied by one State to change policy of another State. After the creation of the role, the Special Rapporteur’s first visit was Sudan, where he advocated for the lifting of US sanctions.

The recommendation to lift sanctions was based on ‘sustained positive actions’ by the government of Sudan on the five tracks which were: the cessation of hostilities in South Kordofan, Blue Nile and Darfur; an improvement in humanitarian access throughout Sudan; addressing the threat of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), an end to negative interference in South Sudan, and cooperation on counter-terrorism.

Human rights organisations would disagree with this glowing assessment. Rather than taking positive steps towards upholding and promoting human rights, in many cases the government has temporarily halted the most egregious abuses, such as bombing in the Darfur region. And as the first US dollars make their way into the Central Bank of Sudan, the question that remains is whether there will ever be tangible improvements now that sanctions have been lifted.

Giving too much for too little progress

Several commentators have stated that the US gave too much away for too little progress, and focused on the wrong issues.

For example, while aerial bombardment in Darfur has reduced, reports of sexual violence remain high. In May, the Ministry of Justice revealed that 35 reports of rape against children had been filed in South Darfur during April and May. The announcement followed the Secretary-Generals report on conflict related sexual violence in which the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) documented 100 incidents of sexual violence affecting 222 victims during 2016.

In terms of freedom of religion or belief (FoRB), the US government listed many areas of concern, stating that it would continue bilateral discussions on these issues. However, when it comes to FoRB, there have been few signs of positive action.

Fundamentally, the human rights situation in Sudan will only improve when the political will to protect the rights of all Sudanese nationals has been established.

Maintaining pressure on the government

When the decision to partially lift US sanctions on Sudan was initially announced by the outgoing Obama administration, the criteria did not include any explicit improvements on human rights.

Between the announcement and continuing bilateral talks with the US, some developments were pushed forward, such as the presidential pardons issued to prisoners of conscience, including Reverend Hassan Abdulraheem, Mr Abdulmonem Abdumawla and, more recently, to human rights activist Mr Mudawi Ibrahim Adam. However, the responsiveness of the Sudanese government during this period can hardly be taken as evidence of ‘sustained progress.’

FoRB violations continued during the bilateral talks, including the demolition of two churches in May 2017 and the killing of a church elder in April.

However, the government of Sudan did prove more responsive to criticism. For example, following the demolition of the sole remaining property in the Soba Aradi district of Khartoum State, the US made strong statements of condemnation, both on its own and in coordination with other embassies in Khartoum. The government of Sudan also rushed to guarantee publicly that it would investigate the issue, and while there has been no remedy for the church that was partially demolished, there was at least a clear attempt to condemn the action within the Sudanese administration.

In the months between the church demolition and the anticipated sanctions decision on 12 July there were no recorded FoRB violations. However, immediately after the Trump administration decided to postpone the decision by three months until 12 October, there was an instant uptick in FoRB violations, which would appear to suggest that any progress was opportunistic rather than evidence of a change of policy within the Sudanese government.

The decision by the Khartoum State Ministry of Education to force Christian schools to open on a Sunday was soon followed by interference in the internal affairs of the Sudanese Church of Christ (SCOC) and the arrest of ten members of its leadership committee. Land disputes with the Sudan Evangelical Presbyterian Church (SEPC) also continued, accompanied by the forced eviction of the religious leaders from their church-owned homes.

On the 6 October, the US decided to permanently lift sanctions on Sudan. Just three days later, 60 Muslim and Christian parents bravely demonstrated outside the Council on Ministers in Khartoum against the forced opening of Christian schools on Sundays.

The need for political will

The overwhelming majority of human rights violations in Sudan are perpetrated by the state and could be remedied easily, if there was the political will to do so.

A human rights activist recently told CSW: “It is only at a time when the government is under pressure that there is relative freedom. Back in 2005 there was a real awakening. Freedom to express and explore plurality of ideas was present until the crackdown in 2010”.

During president Bashir’s recent visit to Russia, he criticised US interference in the Middle East, stated that Sudan’s internal conflicts were caused by US policy and asked President Putin to protect Sudan from US.

The President’s view that US policy was responsible for the cessation of South Sudan and the war in Darfur is troubling as it shows a complete abdication of responsibility for the effects of his domestic policies and a lack of political will to address Sudan’s internal challenges.

It remains to be seen whether the new direction adopted by the international community vis-a-vis Sudan will ultimately lead to a period of prosperity and freedom for the Sudanese people. For now, there are no real signs of progress and the easing of sanctions increasingly appears to have been an extremely premature decision.

Advertisements

]]>cswpressOmar_al-Bashir,_12th_AU_Summit,_090131-N-0506A-347.jpgRosie Costahttps://forbinfull.org/2017/10/20/rosie-costa/
Fri, 20 Oct 2017 07:43:11 +0000http://forbinfull.org/?p=1819Rosaline (Rosie) Costa, a Bangladeshi human rights activist, was forced to leave the country in July 2016. In 2017, CSW interviewed her in New York. During the interview, Rosie discussed the reasons she had to leave Bangladesh, and shed light on issues of religious freedom in the country.

Rosie’s involvement in human rights work began in 1986, after she left the community of nuns to which she belonged for 17 years to pursue human rights work. She spent time working with women and children in the garment industry, establishing a hostel for rescued children who had been forced into madrasas (colleges for Islamic instruction), and speaking around the world about issues faced by minorities and particularly Hindus.

Forced To Flee

While Rosie had been no stranger to risk in her work, her fears for her safety grew following a number of killings of Christians in Bangladesh, perpetrated by people claiming to belong to Daesh. “I realised that I was being followed by some people, that’s when I left the country … I saw how the people were killed, so if something was to happen to me nobody would be able to rescue me from these people.”

For years prior to her enforced departure, Rosie faced many challenges. “I received threats when I worked for the garment industry. On many occasions the owners came to pick me up, or sent hoodlums to pick me up, once they broke my hip bone. I have been physically attacked several times, for several nights I got threatening phone calls and I realised it was not safe to stay there anymore because of the way they were killing people in their houses and on the street.”

When asked how she felt about being forced to leave Bangladesh, she replied “I feel I am dead in a way, because I had my livelihood there.”

Rosie also believes that the government has continued to monitor her.

Forced Conversion

Since 2012, Rosie has been involved in rescuing children who were being forced to convert to Islam. She offered some insight into this situation:

“Children were being taken from their parents by pimps who said they would take them to mission schools and they would not have to spend any money on these children. They were taken to madrassas, where they had to sign a paper saying that they had converted to Islam and were ready to die for Islam. They were then split into groups and sent to various madrassas. Most of the children are Christians. I know of over 500 cases of this that took place in 2012. There are many forced marriages every year. I heard of cases of children as young as four or five being kidnapped.”

Extremism

Rosie also highlighted how radical Islam has been a growing problem in the country.

“We have around 147 groups in Bangladesh under various names that are related to Islamic State. Since 2015 they have targeted Christians, many priests and nuns have received death threats. None of the perpetrators have been arrested or even pursued. Last year I think there were 8 or 9 cases where they attacked missions in groups.”

“Recently Islamist terrorists have been attacking journalists, and writers. In the beginning minorities such as Hindus, Buddhists, and Shi’as were the main targets and were regularly killed.”

Religious Minorities

When asked to describe the current situation for the Christian community in Bangladesh, Rosie replied:

“The Christians are having more and more serious problems which I did not see in earlier times. Before 2000, there was one incident in 1998 in which time bombs were thrown into one church, and after that a few similar cases. In 2013-14 there were a few more incidents, but 2015 was worse and it has been getting worse ever since. People are being identified by their religion and as a result are discriminated against by the government as well as by other groups.”

The situation of Hindus is not much better:

“Hindus have been having continuous problems since 1946, but things are getting worse. The main issue is land owned by the Hindus from the days of Hindu majority regions in Bangladesh. Those are the places that are being targeted because if they can evict the Hindus, they will go to India and will be unable to get the land back.”

Government Inaction

The current government is not directly responsible for the problems faced by religious minorities, but its inaction is an issue. CSW asked Rosie what could be done to improve the situation for minorities:

“By not doing anything, the government are indirectly supporting these extremist groups. At this point, unless the government changes the policy and takes some stern actions or decisions to stop this extremism, I don’t think there will be any development in this situation and it will get worse and worse. The prime minister has hardly done anything thus far, not a single arrest has been made, that is why I think extremism is increasing.”

While Rosie was skeptical that the government would bow to international pressure, she thought there were measures that could be taken to improve the situation of the minorities, especially if pressure came from countries giving aid to Bangladesh. For example, the government could recruit people from minorities in every sector, from administration to the army and police. She also suggested a reform of the education system, removing bias religious education materials from schools.

Rosie’s Inspiration

When asked whether there was anything that encouraged or inspired her in her work, Rosie said she was a “peacemaker” and that was her “inspiration and internal peace”, adding, “that’s what I have burned for my whole life: when people came to me with tears and left with smiling faces that was a success.”

Achieving consensus on the guidelines was no easy task as the 28 Member States have various models of church-state relations; some even have legislation or internal challenges that constitute obstacles to FoRB and can undermine its human rights message overseas, such as blasphemy laws. However agreement on the guidelines produced a common reference point for Member States and commits the EU to using a variety of tools to protect the victims of FoRB violations worldwide.

Through the EP Intergroup’s actions, freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) has gained greater visibility across the EU institutions. The parliamentary hearings and the bilateral meetings it organises between its Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) with other institutions provoke deeper discussions of where more EU action should take place.

Given that the European Parliament monitors the EU’s human rights performance, and can make recommendations to any institution it wishes to address as appropriate, its willingness to monitor progress towards FoRB through the Intergroup is significant.

Such recommendations have the potential to help to raise the profile of this human right and achieve better FoRB literacy across the EU institutions in conjunction with the activities of the Special Envoy on FoRB outside of the EU, Jan Figel. The inspiration for the European Commission’s decision to appoint Figel came from a recommendation in a 2016 European Parliament resolution, drafted by MEPs committed to FoRB.

Since being agreed, some implementation of the guidelines has occurred. Amongst other measures, FoRB now features in the EU’s Human Rights Action Plans; the High Representative has made public statements on some cases where this right has been violated and training is now offered to EU delegation staff and other diplomats by the European External Action Service (EEAS) with the active participation of civil society, the Commission and the EEAS FoRB desk officer. That said, much more needs to be done.

The Intergroup report: under-resourced with an unclear methodological approach

It is in this context that on 20 June 2017, the EP Intergroup, which is currently chaired by two Dutch MEPs, Peter van Dalen and Dennis de Jong, from opposite ends of the political spectrum, launched the third in a series of reports on the state of freedom of religion or belief in the world.

Critics label it a poor man’s copy of the annual report commissioned by the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), but USCIRF has been around longer and is better resourced. They also question the inclusion of certain countries over others. Judging what to cover in the report is not a straight-forward task. There is no shortage of available materials of varying quality on the discrimination and persecution of different minority groups worldwide, making it important for the EP Intergroup to select pertinent and accurate information. Adding to this challenge, many organisations that produce such literature only focus on specific religious or secular groups, rather than providing a general FoRB analysis within a country and the Intergroup lacks the resources and capacity for field research. Unsurprisingly, perhaps such challenges led the Intergroup to publish a call for expressions of interest to identify a consortium that could help it to develop a more robust methodology.

So why does the report matter?

Tellingly, page 10 of the Intergroup’s report notes: “it is not unfair to say that hardly any of the 2016 recommendations to the EEAS, the Commission and the Council were implemented”, indicating that there is still some way to go before its authority as a watchdog can be fully realised. However, in order to grow in membership and stature within the EP, the Intergroup must continue to make bold observations such as: “We witness a trade-off between economic, in particular trade-related, interests and human rights policies” (pg. 11); or that, “the visibility of these activities [by other EU institutions to implement the guidelines] is weak” (pg. 11).

“We witness a trade-off between economic, in particular trade-related, interests and human rights policies” – EP Intergroup on Freedom of Religion or Belief and Religious Tolerance

The report also notes that the EP Intergroup is still waiting on a full report on the implementation of the guidelines; a call that MEPs can make. Indeed, getting such information can be a challenge. As the intergroup rightly notes, neither the EU annual report on human rights nor the mid-term review of the human rights and democracy action plan provide details of the guidelines’ implementation, while country strategy papers and other documents are not made public.

It would be good for the EU to have an evaluation of the implementation of the guidelines, as well as consistent and detailed reporting on FoRB by its overseas delegations, especially in countries of concern. In such countries, perhaps the development of country-specific FoRB action plans, drafted in consultation with member states and civil society, could help to step up the EU’s efforts to protect this right.

“It would be good for the EU to have an evaluation of the implementation of the guidelines, as well as consistent and detailed reporting on FoRB by its overseas delegations, especially in countries of concern.”

Research by Prof. Francois Foret of the Brussels Free University (ULB) and by the Swedish Mission Council (SMC) illustrate the ongoing challenges with implementing the guidelines and the task facing the watchdog. Both Foret’s study on EU institutions (EU overseas delegations in particular), and the SMC’s research on an EU Member State (Sweden) reveal that the guidelines remain relatively unknown by those who should implement them. The SMC found that even where FoRB violations are common, this right may not be a priority focus, or even identified by short-staffed, under-resourced embassies as an issue at all. This mirrors the findings of Prof. Foret’s study; that delegations are ill-equipped to implement the guidelines given the low levels of awareness and expertise.

Training, training and more training

In its report, the Intergroup also identifies the need to offer more training for diplomatic staff; a call also being made by civil society organisations such as CSW, as a member of the Brussels-based European Platform against Religious Intolerance and Discrimination (EPRID). Indeed, in line with paragraph 67 of the EU’s FoRB Guidelines, the EEAS should consider working with Member States and civil society organisations to offer mandatory FoRB training for all of its diplomats.

Any long-term strategy to implement the guidelines requires the mainstreaming of an understanding of freedom of religion or belief internally and must be rooted in efforts to promote religious literacy and education within the EEAS and within member state foreign services.

This has begun, but the scope of material covered and the number of participants at trainings should be expanded over the coming years. This would improve the quality of the observations made by diplomats in the field and the quality of information received by headquarters that is used for strategic planning.

The EU’s multilateral role

The world looks on – especially those countries that would rather bury this human right. As the intergroup report also notes, the EU has hosted side-events on FoRB at the UN’s Human Rights Council and worked on the annual FoRB resolution. And, in part thanks to the efforts of EU member state delegations at the UN in Geneva and New York, CSW was able to obtain its ECOSOC status.

The EP Intergroup may need more resources, but it is on the right track. It is welcome that there is an EU institution publicly recording what progress the EU is visibly making on this human right and that MEPs use their political power to remind the other institutions of their own commitments. The interim report may not provide a comprehensive encyclopedia of FoRB violations, but it should not seek to serve that purpose. If it can maintain its position of a watchdog, this could be far more valuable.